click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
, and it's got to go. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan omelet me down a couple -- only let me down a couple of times in eight years. one of those was 1986, and i still had the dent after i heard on the news he had signed the amnesty act of 1986. but it was on the promise that there would be law enforcement, and we would restore the rule of law and a million people would be legalized. but then from there on forward the law would be enforced. well, i made sure i kept my records right waiting for the ins to show up at my office, but i never saw them. neither did thousands of businesses. but the enforcement in re began era was greater than the enforcement in any succeeding administration, and now the law is so eroded, i sat in a hearing just a couple of days ago and heard la raza say, well, we want to provide comprehensive immigration reform, and after we restore the rule of law -- la raza's telling us they're restoring the rule of law by waiving it? they've eroded the rule of law. and republicans seem to forget of the 11 or 12 million that they say are here -- and i think it's 20 -- t
could label the republicans or start with ronald reagan, cut taxes, big chunk toss the wealthy and then borrow the money to pay the bills. that's how you get debt, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion. ronald reagan had this concept, starve the beast. he said the way we're going to kill social security and medicare and medicaid, we're at right now, is to make this government's debt so big that we can't afford them. >> guest: absolutely. one second, sir. ronald reagan was never in support of killing any of those programs. i mean, that is hyperbole. >> caller: he wanted to tax on the wealthy. let me finish, please, you get -- >> guest: he cut taxes across the board, sir, on everybody. >> caller: start to filibuster because i'm going to hammer you with a question. he lored the tax on the wealthy from 70 down to 40, and that amounted over the 30 years trillions and trillions of dollars being given away to the wealthy. do you think there's a correlation between us being trillions and trillions of dollars in the hole and the fact we gave trillions and trillions of dollars away to th
of democrats and ronald reagan agreed to in the 1980's which is to clean out some of these outlandish special interest tax breaks tax breaks. and i see my good friend, senator levin, here tonight and he is going to outline just some of those outlandish tax breaks. we ought to clean them out and use a portion of those dollars to hold down the rates and keep progressivity. and in the two years after democrats and republicans did that, in the 1980's the country created millions of new jobs. no one can say every one of them was due to that tax reform effort, but it certainly helped. and we had senator enzi on the floor earlier this evening, and i've been working with her on something that i think really has been missed in the tax reform debate and that is senator enzi has said when are people going to start talking about the transition rules that you would need to actually implement the tax reform plan, because today in a global economy, and senator murray and i come from a part of the world that's so trade sensitive, here we've got senator enzi talking about something very practical that ought t
't add up long term. they agree with that much as president ronald reagan and speaker tip o'neill agreed with the very same notion back in 1982 and 1983. the numbers weren't adding up long term for social security, and something had to be done. and some painful decisions had to be made in the early 1980's. and to this day we thank god for president ronald reagan and speaker tip o'neill for having the bipartisan courage to do the tough things to make the tough decisions and adjust an important program so that social security has been saved for the past three decades. we need that kind of statesmanship out of the white house today. frankly, we need that kind of leadership out of the white house. you know, we're calling for bipartisan action. i think it's worth noting -- and it pains me to say this -- for the first time in 92 years we are considering a budget without seeing a plan from the president of the united states. he announced just last week that he was just going to wait in sending us his budget plan. it will be two months late by the time it arrives, according to the president's ow
's been. right now already, it's the highest this rate has been since ronald reagan inherited a disastrous tax code from jimmy carter. that was a long time ago. of course, that doesn't include the state and local taxes which put many americans today at a top marginal tax rate of over 50%, where government is taking over half of the income that they are earning, and our friends who are introducing this budget are suggesting that all this isn't enough. we need yet another big tax increase. in fact, we need a giant one. $1.5 trillion over the next ten years in new additional taxes. i've got news for you. i don't see how this can probably be done without significant tax increases on middle-class americans. i know some folks in this chamber like to suggest that can all be done just by soaking the rich again. we just go back to soaking rich folks again. i will give you an example why i don't think that can work. the president made out in his budget last year his plan for a new whole round of taxes on wealthy americans on top of the tax increase that occurred 11 weeks ago, and he specified how he
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5